Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Friday June 12, 2009 @07:08PM
from the of-course-they-aren't-biased dept.

Mike Masnick over at Techdirt has an incredibly in-depth look at two presentations in particular from the recent CISAC world copyright summit. Rep. Robert Wexler and Senator Orrin Hatch both gave deeply troubling presentations calling opponents of stronger copyright "liars" and suggesting that copyright is the only way to make money on creative works, respectively. "Does anyone else find it ironic that it's the so-called 'creative class' which copyright supporters insist are enabled by copyright supposedly have not been able to tell this 'great story?' Perhaps the problem is that there is no great story to tell. Perhaps the problem is that more and more people are recognizing that the 'great story' is one that suppresses the rights of everyday users, stifles innovation, holds back progress and stamps on our rights of free speech and communication? Has it occurred to Wexler that for the past decade, the industry has been telling this story over and over and over again — and every time they do, more and more people realize that it doesn't add up? "

Debating how Copyright should work is like debating who should be king. If you accept to be ruled does it really matter how?

Yes. Yes, it does. There are good kings and bad kings. Now, generally in the modern world we've accepted that "no king" (or having a king who is no more than a figurehead) is the best option of all, but for most of human history that hasn't been a choice.

Will we ever get rid of copyright? Hell, I don't know. Should we? I don't know the answer to that one either. What I do know i

You mean this? http://www.quantumg.net/tcpsafe/ [quantumg.net] No, I wouldn't have any problem with that.. being that I licensed it under the GPL v3 and all. And before you ask, yeah, go ahead and sell it without source code, I don't care.

Care you share your reasoning? Or is this "belief" in the religious sense?

Half-and-half, or thereabouts. Prior to the establishment of modern copyright,* creators suffered pretty badly. The Statute of Anne makes a note of this as preamble. Although lawsuits, legislation, and Irish book piracy ran wild for the next century, a lot more authors got paid and a lot more books got writ. Based on this, I conclude that copyright works - at least somewhat.

The faith end of things is a general belief in property as a viable concept applied to a belief in the work ethic. A writer, like a carpenter, deserves a day's pay for a day's work.** As noted above, copyright is the only method we've used that's even been marginally successful at achieving that. While intellectual property may not be an inescapable conclusion of those premises, it's the only one I've got.

* That is, a limited, protected copyright granted to the author.

** Yeah, I'm ignoring a lot of nuance, such as what a bad author or carpenter deserve, but I don't want to start a discourse on the work ethic. I'll note that artistry is (generally), and I think should be, a meritocratic vocation.

The problem we're having now is that the massive extensions to copyright terms mean that the writer is getting decades of pay for his day's work (ok, so you can't write a book in a day, but you get my point).

Sure, I support lowering the protection period. I also support eliminating laws against circumvention and reverse engineering. I highly support civil procedure reform to prevent the thuggish tactics so popular with IP attorneys (or at least I'd like to see these mass-threat tactics treated as the barratry they are).

But I won't advocate eliminating copyright. I like copyright; it's put food on my table.

No, we don't. We are talking about, whether creators — of movies, music, literature, software, fashion designs — have the inherent rights to control their creations, or whether whoever happens to be able to copy their work has the same rights to it as the creator.

That boat sailed a long time ago grasshopper and the answer back when Shakespeare was doing his gig is the same as the answer today. You build on the shoulders of giants, and only reach the heights you do, by the efforts of those around you and before you.

In order to give you incentive to build, and in deference to the realization that it is work just the same, you are granted the ability to control the rights to copy something for a limited time. But all the same, your work stands on our backs, and thus, we share in the ultimate ownership.

That limited time is and should always be that, limited. If you can't (or won't) monetize your products in that time, then that is on you. Not us.

And we should not be expected to limit our own rights and abilities outside of that specific right of yours to control who can copy your work for a limited time, simply because you've failed to keep up with technology enough.

That limited time is and should always be that, limited. If you can't (or won't) monetize your products in that time, then that is on you. Not us.

And we should not be expected to limit our own rights and abilities outside of that specific right of yours to control who can copy your work for a limited time, simply because you've failed to keep up with technology enough.

I am going to play devil's advocate here. I agree with what you are saying that the public domain is the sole purpose of copyright regardless of what the distributors want to portray. That said, here we go...

It is hard for an owner to control for that limited time when whole works are leaked to torrent sites even before they are released. How does that situation play in your scheme of things? How about the infringed content when someone walks into a theater with a camera then posts it online? How about the latest Photoshop version showing up on torrent sites hours after (or even before) their release? The point is, in a connected world, content owners don't get even that limited time you are referring to. Are current copyright limits too long? Sure. Can you guarantee if the limit is reduced to say 7 years it won't be shared on the torrent sites in two weeks after release or before? I thought not.

The answer to "people are stealing my shit" isn't "you honest folk who aren't stealing my shit need to give up your right to do things" especially when it still doesn't result in people not stealing your shit. Nor is it "Well because some people steal my shit, the public should have to let me control this longer". How does longer control help anything but provide incentive to steal?

There are ways of making buying something more desirable than stealing it, both by creating incentives to buy and disincentives to steal. The problem today is that rather than do either, the argument is made that they simply need to keep control over the work longer and longer. And each time, they'll use the excuse that people are still stealing it, because the point is that they realize that this means they can milk it forever.

There are ways of making buying something more desirable than stealing it, both by creating incentives to buy and disincentives to steal. The problem today is that rather than do either, the argument is made that they simply need to keep control over the work longer and longer. And each time, they'll use the excuse that people are still stealing it, because the point is that they realize that this means they can milk it forever.

It is greed on the part of the copyright owners for sure. I'm not arguing that.

Who said they had complete control ? Or indeed that they should have ? When Adobe goes bust maybe I'll believe that the tiny minority who downloaded Photoshop for free had something to do with it. But they won't go bust, because the ones who really wanted it usually end up as customers later on - the first hit is free remember. This is not about profit or no profit - this is about "either you pay or you do without". You can never win that fight. Back in the 1800s children were sentenced to transportation for stealing an apple from a market stall. Is that the degree of control you wish to see here ? In the grand scheme of things, no-one suffers from a minority downloading movies. I don't regard making 1 million less* on a profit of 20 or 200 million, suffering. In fact it just highlights the all consuming greed of the media companies that they should make such a fuss about it. They are relying on the slippery slope fallacy to predict doom for their businesses, when in fact they are all making healthy profits. If they weren't they wouldn't be doing it at all.

*They think they are making 1 million less, when in fact they are making just as much as the market will bear. If downloads and copying dvds disappeared tomorrow, their profits would not jump by 1 million. It is entirely notional and wishful thinking on their part. They can test this quite easily, just don't release the movie on DVD, only release in cinemas. But then they'll make less money, something MUST be wrong with their assumptions. Speculate to accumulate - but they are trying to get rid of the speculation and change it to "invest to securely accumulate". Business doesn't work like that. Short of the govt. mandating compulsory attendance at cinemas to view the latest blockbuster, they will never have the profits they seem to be expecting as their right. All companies have margins for "wastage", these assholes are expecting the govt. to reduce their wastage margins to zero at the expense of our liberty and heritage.

Fucking Harry Potter - a book about a wizard at school - written in the english language. Does JK Rowling have copyright on English words ? (Duh !) Has there ever been a book written about a child wizard at school (yes, lots). So how come she suddenly OWNS the concept ? Where would she be without the education she received free of personal cost ? Or without the inspiration she received from other peoples works dating back millennia. Limited time it says and limited time it should be. Copying by a minority for non-profit personal use has no appreciable effect on the value of a work worthy of protection. If they don't get rich instantly, maybe the work is crap, or they have unreasonable expectations. Try creating another work. If that doesn't sell either, then you are in the wrong trade. Asimov started writing (Sci-fi) for magazines. He could knock out a story in a few hours. It was that background that gave him an idea that maybe he could write longer stuff and publish it as books. People today think they can burst into the market and instantly demand top dollar, and if anybody actually reads their stuff for free, then they are being stolen from. What about Asimovs early work languishing in a doctors waiting room ? Should he have demanded payment for every pair of eyes that happened to stray across the page his story was on ?

Actually the whole current distortion of copyright is a lie. Copyright protection's sole and only purpose was to allow people to generate an exclusive income from their works for a short period of time in order to promote the creation of more works, "THAT WOULD FURTHER THE ARTS AND SCIENCES". Not make a handful of bloated egotistical people rich, not distort the nature of human society so that it would attempt to mimic the aberrant behavioural patterns of poseurs and grossly self indulgent individuals, not

Are current copyright limits too long? Sure. Can you guarantee if the limit is reduced to say 7 years it won't be shared on the torrent sites in two weeks after release or before? I thought not.

I can't tell if you did it on purpose or not, but you've just made the standard argument for abolishing copyright - it's not enforceable so we should top pretending (and get on to promoting new business models).

Of course you have an example of a new business model. One that will work. By work I mean in reality, on this planet. Care to share it?

First off, what's your definition of "in reality" - are you going to dismiss anything that is not already widely successful? Your snarkiness suggests you would be fond of circular arguments like that.

Assuming you aren't just being an ass, here are a couple off the top of my head:

1) Customization - give away the original recordings and then sell versions that have been customized to the buyer's wishes. Like how Elton John changed the lyrics of "Candle in the Wind" to be about Princess Diana. There are lot

I think you may have missed the point. Copyright was never a guarantee that works wouldn't be "stolen". It is simply a means by which society has agreed that if caught for infringement an individual will be punished according to a standard. The length of a copyright term has nothing to do with the actions of individual infringers. Nor should it. Shortening copyright is for the public good, not as a means to fix the piracy issue.

How about the infringed content when someone walks into a theater with a camera then posts it online?

Who gives a shit about a video cam? Watching that is nothing like seeing a real DVD or much less, watching a movie in the cinema. I think people who DO watch them use them as preview. Anyway, I sometimes get one of these accidentally when I buy secondhand DVDs at flea markets. And 10 seconds into them when it's clear what it is, shadows moving on the screen, rustling cellophane, mobile phones ringing, I

Back in the early 1950's, my father invented the branch of engineering that is discussed in our textbook. Of course there were some people that did some related work before he did, but they didn't come close to putting together the physics models that are now used commonly (in our field).

Our text book is (C) 1995 and since then there have been 11 printings and well over twenty thousand copes sold of a very mathematical book. When we give lectures to the students that use the book, they are always thanking us for taking the time to write it down. It took eight years to write with a pause in the middle, then a large re-write for the final version. I typed something like two million keystrokes. The artist that created four hundred line drawings was paid something over thirty thousand US Dollars for his labor by our publisher. When people tell us about typos or other errors, we have our publisher correct them in the next printing.

You, grasshopper, have a lot of damn gall to tell me that we can't profit from our labor by restricting who can publish it.

Good for you friend, you worked hard you did the deed, and you see the fruits of your labor.

Now tell me, your father, did he invent his own number system? No?Did he invent his own alphabet? No.Were the laws of physics that his branch of engineering is based upon, discovered by him?Did he invent the math system behind it? The algebra, the calculus?

No?

Well hey, at least when you published your book, you probably did so on a machine completely of your own design. Using a printing system you invented. No?

Of course not, no one does. That argument doesn't even have a follow up. The math/alphabet/physics that was taught to him in school (Or learned it himself). We (as a society) want people to use their education. Otherwise we wouldn't teach it, and encourage higher education.

Well hey, at least when you published your book, you probably did so on a machine completely of your own design. Using a printing system you invented. No?

I'm sure that when you BUY a printer, or pay someone to print it for you, you get the right to turn around and sell what you've printed. WTF does this have to do with anything?

Did I say he should? Mighty nice strawman you've tried to build there friend. It'd be a shame if some flames hit it and burnt it all up. Perhaps you want to go back and read the complete thread before attempting to put words in someone's mouth again.

There's no way you can pay back the people before you? But you expect the people coming after you to pay you? And you call bullshit on me friend?

I think not.

Or once the inevitable happens and your father passes to the next world, are you planning on giving the book away for free? Is that it? You don't think Newton or any of those people in the 'several pages of references' had descendants that should see a buck from their work as well? Or is it only just you are special enough for that reward?

... Did he invent the math system behind it? The algebra, the calculus?...

I call bullshit on you, mr grasshopper.

Of course there isn't any way we can pay back Newton and/or Leibniz for inventing calculus. We are the first to give credit where due--the book has several hundred references to related work, which appeared in the interval between my father's first papers (1950's) and our (C) date. But we can pay forward by helping the next generation (of engineers that are interested in our field) get a real head start on their careers. We do this all the time, our volunteer work includes free lectures and design reviews (for just a couple of examples).

As far as the publishing technology goes, we did pay what the creators asked, we didn't steal any of that.

Let me tell you, I was pissed when some a**hole scanned the book and posted it.

Hurry up and die, I can wait 75 years to build on your work, I don't think I can wait the duration of your life on top of that. Before you shuffle off this mortal coil, please forward your profits and penalties to the heirs of the people named in your bibliography. I would hate to sit on the shoulders of a thief.

P.S. I just sent the great great great great great great grandson of Billy Shakes 50 cents for his timely turn of phrase from Hamlet.

While I want to believe you. I also know the game played by writers and textbook publishers. It is dirty, mean, anti-education, and money grubbing. As a recent grad pardon me if I'm untrusting of a group of people who seem to generally view small edits, endless "editions" (with no real changes), endless copyright, and people assigning their own books and at $100+ each. Perhaps you are not like them, but its like trusting an oil executive to tell you the truth about the environment. You are simply too attached to the machine to be taken at face value. By the way, posting AC certainly doesn't help your credibility.

You nailed it when you talked about building on the shoulders of others. Where is the "cut" for their teachers, parents, role-models, or anybody else who helped build the base from which they created their work. Sure they may have been payed once for their services, but why is once good enough for them when it clearly isn't for the music industry and some of their phony artists? As far as I'm concerned if copyright never ends than neither should the payoff to all those who lent a hand in its creation direc

They obviously don't have an "inherent" right, because if they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's what an inherent right is - one that exists already. In order for it to be inherent, it would have to be the case, at a minimum, that it was broadly-enough recognized that you didn't have to fight against the average person's natural inclination. But peoples' natural inclinations are pretty clear - while people generally do seem to think that artists should be compensated, they do not agree that artists have a completely unrestricted copyright. You can see this simply by observing how people generally behave.

Copyright is a created right. It exists for a purpose: to encourage people to create new works of art. And it comes at a cost: peoples' right to copy these new works is restricted. Furthermore, peoples' right to speak about these works is restricted, and this does indeed get into the arena of freedom of speech, whether you want it to or not.

When you attempt to claim all rights to your work, in perpetuity, you are taking something away from the rest of the world. It may not be something that you consider important, but it is something that we consider important. So you have two choices: kill everyone who does not agree with you, or come to a compromise.

And that is precisely the purpose of this debate, which you seem to be arguing does not exist.

Exactly. Free speech is an inherent right. The First Amendment does not grant it, but forbids Congress to restrict it.

That depends a lot on your definition of inherent. The authors of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that all people (with varying definitions of "people") should have certain rights that the government could not take away. Either these rules apply only to the government, and any other person can take away your rights, or the government must enforce rules to prevent others from taking away your rights. If it's the latter, then those rights don't really exist without government. I

That's what an inherent right is - one that exists already. In order for it to be inherent, it would have to be the case, at a minimum, that it was broadly-enough recognized that you didn't have to fight against the average person's natural inclination.

So black people in the United States fifty years ago did not have an inherent right of equality since they had to fight for it?

Congratulations, you have entered the philosophical minefield of the concept of "rights". Really it's just semantic bullshit, it's arguing over whether the word refers to those things which ought to be true, or those things which are true. I say you have a right to violate copyright, and the powers that be have the right to try to pass laws to stop you, and you have the right to riot and throw bricks if you want to, et cetera; you have the right to do your best. The idea of a natural "right to life" for example is hilarious; just try to guarantee it! But again, it's all just arguing over the definitions of words. In English, one word is often used many different ways by definition, let alone colloquially.

No, we don't. We are talking about, whether creators -- of movies, music, literature, software, fashion designs -- have the inherent rights to control their creations, or whether whoever happens to be able to copy their work has the same rights to it as the creator.

No, the earlier poster is correct. Everyone has an inherent right to make, distribute, etc. copies of works, whether they created those works or not. This is a matter of freedom of speech. It's the reason why, for example, you have the right to recite Shakespeare in public, even though you are probably not Shakespeare. During the term of copyright, the public willingly surrenders a portion of their right to make use of the work of the author as part of a scheme to derive a greater public benefit than the public harm caused by suffering such restrictions. When the copyright expires, the author loses his right to prohibit other people from making use of the work, though he retains his natural right to use the work himself. This is why we talk about copyright as an exclusive right -- i.e. a right granted to the author to exclude others from doing certain things with the work -- and why when copyright expires, no rights in the work are, or need to be, granted to the public. The public has always been possessed of rights in the work, and upon the expiration of the copyright, the public is once again free to exercise those inherent rights.

What's not an inherent right is copyright. Authors have an inherent right as to whether or not to create a work to begin with, and they have an inherent right as to whether or not to reveal that work to anyone else, or to hide or destroy it. No one is suggesting that authors be compelled to create or compelled to publish. However, copyright is the right to prohibit the public from making, distributing copies, etc. with regard to works that members of the public have managed to obtain copies of, most often by publishing. The right to prohibit other people from, e.g. reciting Shakespeare, is certainly not anyone's inherent right! And as it is impossible to reconcile the idea with the much more reasonable idea that people do have an inherent (but not inalienable) right to recite Shakespeare, or whatever else, it's clear that this nonsense about inherent rights of authors to censor the rest of the public is absolute tripe.

I'm also rather surprised by the specific language you used. Movies, music, literature, software -- these are not unusual. But in the US at least, there is no copyright for fashion designs. Copyright in pictorial, graphic or sculptural works (such as clothing) can only subsist where the work is separable from any parts which have utility. (The idea, basically, is to avoid having people use copyright when they ought to be using patents) This just isn't the case for clothing, and it's long settled that this is so. Nor is there any need for copyright in the field of clothing design; copyright exists for utilitarian purposes, i.e. to encourage authors to create and publish new original and derivative works, while minimally protecting those works in both scope and duration of protection. That is, copyright exists to get the most stuff in the public domain fastest, with as little copyright as possible along the way. The field of clothing is terribly healthy without copyright. Many new works of fashion design are made all the time. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that there would be a substantial increase in the number of works if copyright were granted. In fact, there is an excellent reason to believe that there would be far fewer, as unauthorized derivatives would not be as common. Further, rent-seeking behavior amongst monopolists being what it is, the public would likely lose access to cheap copies of the designs. There is simply no public benefit _at all_ for copyrighted fashion design. So I'm wondering, why did you mention it?

Long story short, you seem to be quite backwards on this matter. You might want to read up on the utilitarian basis of copyright law, and the actual laws on the books.

Copyright exists because criminals have claimed to own everything, and enforce that claim with guns. They then give you made up little services you can do and trade with them, like make a painting or give them a blowjob. They pretend that the crap you make is meaningful property, so you can pretend to trade your made up crap with them for some food and a place to live. But it's all made up, and the moment that the chips are down, you're holding your stupid little tickets a

There are two balanced rights. You only listed one. Here they are, together (this phrasing taken from the two parts of Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights):

(1) "Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits."

(2) "Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."

Sure, you can say that one particular implementation of part 2 (i.e. copyright) is not an inherent right. But part 2 itself is the fundamental inherent right which we have to figure out how to implement.

The Universal Declaration doesn't list inherent rights. It lists rights which are good ideas and which people ought to have. Some of them are inherent, others are not. For example, people ought to have a guaranteed right to medical care (see Art. 25(1)), but we are not endowed by God or nature or whatever with an inherent right to compel others to grant us medical care. And treating oneself only gets you so far.

Frankly, I'd say that Art. 27(2) is outright wrong. Copyright is utilitarian in nature. A particular polity can decide to grant copyrights or not grant copyrights as it sees fit, provided it is generally equitable. It's little different than a town deciding to put up streetlights; if they're useful and cost-effective and realizable, then sure, they might be installed. And people might hold differing opinions as to whether or not they ought to be set up or not. But it's not a matter of human rights. It's a social program meant to help subsidize authors for the public benefit. It isn't necessary or even particularly important. It should not be in the Universal Declaration. Whether an author should be granted a copyright is a question for the society he lives in. It shouldn't be a given.

Plus of course, you still just cannot reconcile Art. 19, 27(1), and 27(2). It cannot be done. They're in conflict if you assign them equal weight. My solution -- that free speech trumps but is partially alienable for the purpose of setting up copyright, if the particular copyright law in question is seen as desirable by those who will be burdened by it -- at least makes sense. This is the same problem the moral rights crowd runs into; it's nonsensical, and even the countries that pretend to practice it are really hypocrites.

"Authors have an inherent right as to whether or not to create a work to begin with" yup and if I want to starve I won't create anything at all or we'll let you have it the minute I produce it and still I'll starve.It's my work, You can buy it, you can use it for your own amusement. You CAN NOT make copies of it and give it away.

No. There are plenty of ways for an author to make money without copyright. For example, Picasso could sell a painting for extravagant amounts; the sorts of people who were prepared to pay him such vast sums wanted an actual copy he made, and would not have just gone out and bought a cheap poster of the same work instead. Architects in the US have traditionally made a living without copyright. The aforementioned fashion designers still don't have copyrights, but do okay. The list goes on and on. In fact, I was a professional artist before I got into law, and I never made a penny that was attributable to copyright, but I nevertheless supported myself and had a comfortable life.

Of course, copyright is no guarantee of success either. Even if you do have a copyright, you can still starve because your work is unpopular. There are plenty of flop movies, plays, books, etc.

The work you create is indeed yours, in the sense that you created it. Other than that, you have no particularly special rights in it inherently. Certainly you cannot control whether or not other people make copies of it and give them away merely because you are the author. Whatever ability you have to control what other people do and do not do can only possibly be based on whether or not those other people consent to your control. Why would they ever do so, unless they felt that it would somehow benefit them more to submit to it than not to?

That's not free speech. You certainly have a right to say the same thing I said in your own words you can even quote me on specific points THAT IS FREE SPEECH.

Yes. And copying your work verbatim is free speech too. But I might be willing to temporarily not do that, at least in some circumstances, if you made it worth my while. But you don't just start out dictating to me what I may and may not say, merely because you said it first.

After my ability to make money from it runs out it can become public domain but not until it has run the course of being MY FUCKING WORK ASSHOLE!

That's simply never how the law has worked. Even in this awful era of copyright law we now find ourselves in, the copyright term runs out after a particular period of time, regardless of whether or not you've completely exhausted the copyright-related revenues to be had.

You are supposed to be enriched by what I write for you and teach you or make you think about. It is for you to repeat what I say or disagree with it vocally if you wish. But taking my work and copying it and giving it away at your whim is not free speech.I don't understand how anyone can support this obvious garbage. That this "public domain first" crap exists I just don't see how in any society you could think that!

Society is enriched by: 1) Authors creating new original works; 2) Authors creating new derivative works; 3) The public being free to use works in any manner they see fit (copying, distributing, preparing derivative works based upon, etc.); 4) The public not having to pay for works, access to works, copies, etc.

An ideal world would be one in which every creative work that could be created, was, and where there was no copyright at all, so that everyone had cost-free access to the entire body of human creative output. For practical reasons, we can't manage that at this time, but we should at least strive to get as close to that as possible.

The algebra of copyright is essentially that without copyright, some number of works x will be created and published because there are non-copyright-related

That's not free speech. You certainly have a right to say the same thing I said in your own words you can even quote me on specific points THAT IS FREE SPEECH. After my ability to make money from it runs out it can become public domain but not until it has run the course of being MY FUCKING WORK ASSHOLE!

Take a look at your own little rant. Is it offensive? Yes. Is it obscene? By most community standards, absolutely. And there are many, many people who would therefore choose to class it as "not free speech." But fortunately for you, they don't get to do that.

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. The host went on to say that he died of a rare and malignant form of copyright, after it spread to his liver. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to culture. Truly an American icon.

No, we don't. We are talking about, whether creators -- of movies, music, literature, software, fashion designs -- have the inherent rights to control their creations, or whether whoever happens to be able to copy their work has the same rights to it as the creator.

[sigh] If you say something -- anything, whether or not it's something someone else has said before -- you are exercising your right to free speech. If the law tells you that you can't say what you want to say, that is a restriction on your freedom of speech. Period.

Saying "I support free speech, but X doesn't count" is a classic tool of the censor, and it's always wrong, whether X is a political position with which you disagree, a word you don't want your children to hear, or just something that someone

One sentence- Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright! The man has been pushing up the daisies (or a Popsicle, depending on whether you believe the tale or not) for over half a century, and yet his FIRST work, one made when planes were made out of cloth and antibiotics were just a dream, is STILL under copyright. I don't care which side you are on, i thionk we can all agree that is just fucked up!

The American copyright system, which is now being shoved down the rest of the planet's throats was a CONTRACT- nothing more. in return for a LIMITED copyright, we in turn got a richer and more diverse Public Domain for future artists to build on and for We, The People, to enjoy. Instead we have been robbed of our Public Domain by treasonous corporations with the blatant bribery of our public officials. Until We, The People are once again represented at the negotiating table ALL copyrights should be treated by the people as completely worthless and ignored. An unjust law paid for with outright bribery should be viewed as the illegal act that it is. But until sane copyrights are again restored and We The People are given representation all acts produced by corrupted officials for their corporat5e masters should simply be ignored by all.

Seriously. We're talking about your "right" to download movies without paying for them.

To equate this with the end of democracy just makes you look ridiculous.

The comparison is quite apt actually, if a tad shrill. Say congress extends presidential term limits every 4 years and the House of Represenatives chose to re-elect him/her every 4 years regardless of the outcome of the "popular vote", you might cry foul. Technically, this would be legal but very unwise.

Copyrights are supposed to expire, mouse or no. Instead, they are extended ad infinitum to provide an economic moat to industries that would otherwise have none. Again, it is legal and quite common to rent congress-critters in order to bolster a failing (or failed) business model.

We were to be accorded limited/fair use of purchased copyrighted works. Instead we are only allowed to view, never transfer, transform, or reproduce these works in any way. Another bait and switch, I bought a product but now, somehow, I have no ownership rights to it.

There is a very good reason why unpopular but powerful governments shut down internet services (facebook, twitter, yahoo email, google, etc). The effortless transmission of information threatens them in exactly the same way it threatens the executives of Disney, Time Warner, Fox, and other large content creators. If you cannot control the flow of information, you cannot control the population or the consumer.

Don't you wonder why AOL could carpet the landscape with CDs/DVDs for pennies, yet when the same medium is produced by RIAA or MPAA members they cost $15.99 or $24.99? Independent filmmakers seem able to produce top quality films for only a few million, even using unionized labor throughout. When the MPAA members make movies, the budgets are in the hundreds of millions just to one up the last blockbuster with more fluff. Who pays for all this? You do. They just moved the decimal place once place to the right and rented congress to make sure that you have to pay it.

The state legislature of Indiana once passed a law that said "3 times the diameter of a circle is the circumference". So everyone who calculated the true circumference of a circle using Pi was in violation of the law. There was no Circumference Calculators Association of America at that time, so today we are able to determine for ourselves just how much runaround we get from congress on some issues.

Your absolutely right. Which is why an amendment was passed [wikipedia.org] to limit it to 2 terms, so the persons example stands. After all you don't think its We The People who elect our President or amend our Constitution? It's Congress.

The state legislature of Indiana once passed a law that said "3 times the diameter of a circle is the circumference".

Nope. Urban legend, with some basis in fact. They *almost* passed a bill which had been prepared by some nutjob pretending to be a mathematical genius. Part of the bill claimed (indirectly) that pi was 3.2.

The law was never passed, and even if it had been, it wouldn't have been against the law to calculate the actual value of pi. It would have been like those bills Congress loves to pass along the lines of "We hereby recognize that puppies are cute." They're not gonna fine you for preferring kittens.

no, that's not entirely true. The actual story is far more releveant though.

A local doctor, who fancied himself an amateur mathematician 'invented' some proof regarding circles which also dropped out the value of pi as exactly 3.25. He they passed this to a friend in the state legislature and got it written into a bill, such that Indiana would have free use of his proof in school textbooks, etc., in exchange for protecting his 'invention' against other people ripping it off. The lower house pushed it around

We're talking about how culture is held hostage by people and organisations who think they're entitled to it. Culture depends on the use and reuse of what came before it. You can't do this today, a lot of culture is lying around and nobody may pick it up and create something new out of it. Redoing a 70s or 60s classic to fit into modern tastes? Can't do it, unless you are willing to deal with a huge studio that will rip your pants off if you're not careful.

Copyright was created to give artists an incentive to create, to give culture a boost and to make people create. Today, it is used to keep people from doing just that.

Sounds great. But with all that digital media out there, and all the copyright holders' rights to enforce, we would need some kind management system. Maybe some kind of software that will constantly monitor users' PCs and make sure that actually are allowed to use the media they have. We could call it something like "E-Rights Watcher". Great idea!

There is only one problem with your glib idea. The people who are supposed to choose not to watch the movie are being manipulated into wanting to watch it.

I would totally agree with you if there were laws which required the media cartels to spend even 10% of their advertising budget on educating the Average Joe how he could actually enjoy spending his time not watching their product.

Yes, it isn't going to happen. The same Average Joes are also manipulated into supporting (or at least not actively dissenting

I agree that the moderator probably just disagreed, having been around here for quite a while; however, since the post really is just a restatement of what is supposed to be the status quo, there is a certain amount of justification for it being modded Redundant.

ignoring the fact that we live in a more connected society where media like films, album master tapes, and so on last longer, and so content owners can make money on something for many more decades than in the past.

Copyright was originally introduced to cover written works such as books. Go to any decent library and you will find books that have lasted a lot longer than most films do.

Copyrights were extended to reflect the times.

In reality, copyright laws were introduced to encourage creative people to create more stuff for the enrichment of society as a whole. The terms of these copyrights were carefully chosen to give the creator enough time to make some money, but not so long that they could simply stop creating and sit back and live of an afternoon's work they put in fifty years before in a recording studio.

Also, copyright terms were set at the length they were, because printing was a very expensive process, so the length of time allowed to recoup costs reflected that. Reproducing electronic works is virtually free these days, and even printing is far less expensive. Given those facts, if copyright were to be enacted for the first time now, the term would probably only be 5 years. And IIRC, there was no mention of profit at all. The term was meant to allow the creator time to recoup their costs so that the ben

These "Artists" you speak of are the only people in the world that I've ever met who have honestly believed that they deserve to be paid by us in perpetutuality for 'an hours' worth of work using material they've borrows from us.

Engineers don't expect a monthly check from the people who drive over the bridges built to their design.

Architects aren't getting rich off the residuals on their building designs.

Your average office worker doesn't even get paid for all the reports and charts they create.

Why is it that being an "Artist" should equate to "being paid forever".

And PST... if we truely are living in such a connected world, then it sould be even easier for the "Artist" to make their buck in a shorter amount of time than before. The fact that the works 'last longer' is bullshit, given I still can go see the Mona Lisa, yet the majority of the TV shows broadcast just in the 30's and 40's are lost forever.

Ok. In that case, let's go to a model where society pays salary to all artists, bad ones get fired, good ones promoted, etc... basically the same as other jobs. Of course, that money needs to come from somewhere. There are two options:

1) Corporations employ the artists and make money by selling their works. Looks like we still need copyright after all.2) The government employs artists, gives their works away to the public for free, but has to pay for it with a substantial tax hike.

How many times do you think an average McMansion design is designed? Once. How many times is it used? You do know what a McMansion is, right? Once of those previously ubiquitous generic homes that sub-division developers loved building enmasse prior to the housing bubble collapse. Each one exactly the same as the one next to it, only deviating occasionally in paint color and siding choices.

There are a plethora of items out there in the world which a 'creator' has thought up and been compensated for exactly

Just another data point correlated with the general trend of Congresscritters whoring for the **AA. Even Wexler, who is a member of the progressive congress, needs wealthy donors. And he gets them by fellating the copyright cosa nostra, in this example...

Everyone in congress is owned by one or more corporate interests, and although it seems the recording and movie industries target those with a (D) after their names, Orrin Hatch proves that their corruption is bipartisan.

I thought we were for copyright reform here... i.e. a return to reasonable copyright periods. When did we decide that we wanted to completely abolish copyright? What about the GNU copyrights? Do we start ignoring them too?

If you just want to completely trash the system and ignore all copyrights, then sorry, I didn't sign up for that revolution.

The position of no copyright simply serves to alienate people. Sure there are reasons against copyright as it is now, but most people are somewhere between "coping with it"and "enjoying it" (or, at least, what it has provided us). No copyright, on the other hand, is an extreme viewpoint that is trivially easy to poke holes in. Copyright supporters, such as myself, barely have to lift a finger in order to generate scepticism and doubt over the "everyth

I am against copyright though. I am amused when pro-copyright posters say everyone is in my camp, I think it feels lonely here!:D

It's not quite so amusing when you consider the fact that I was considering only the people in your camp.

I honestly don't understand the moderate viewpoint of copyright reform given that it's a paper tiger no matter how you dull the claws. What on God's Green Earth is the purpose in reforming a law which you have no hope of enforcing?

I'm a copyright abolitionist. Other folks on here are copyright reformists. Other folks on here like copyright just the way it is thank you. Other folks on here think copyright should be strengthened. Other folks on here think copyright should be more like regular property laws.

How do you make copyright laws more like regular property laws?
The way I see it, regular property laws says something like "it's illegal if you take my car without either paying or getting my permission to take it", which is roughly the equivalent of "it's illegal if you take my master tape without either paying or getting my permission to take it".
We're talking about the equivalent of "it's illegal if you make a copy of my car with me not noticing it" - which as far as I know has not put many people be

Well, it's not my opinion, so I can't really give a fair explanation.. but what Sonny Bono said was that copyright should never expire, it should have no fair use exceptions, it should attract criminal charges for violations, and be investigated by the police. I find this absurd, of course, but I guess he would have been in favour of the scenario where ripping a CD to create an mp3 is detected by some DRM mechanism in the OS, sends a message to the police, who then come knock on your door and charge you wi

I thought we were for copyright reform here... i.e. a return to reasonable copyright periods.

In politics, you'll always have to negotiate, and when you do, you'll usually not end up with the solution you find optimal, but some middle ground between your solution and your opponent's solution. If you argue for reasonable protection terms, you'll get the middle ground between reasonable and unreasonably long term lengths. Only by aiming to abolish copyright, you can pull the middle ground to where you want it, and thus get a reasonable term length after the negotiations are concluded.

What's the reason behind copyright? To give authors and creative artists an incentive to produce, to give them the exclusive right to use their creation for a limited time (yeah, that's the idea, now the studios hold it in the stranglehold... bear with me, ok?), so they can regenerate their expense, so they can reap the rewards for their labour, so they can actually live off their creation.

Tell me one thing: If you're unable to regenerate your cost, if you don't earn enough within 50 years to have an incentive to produce, why do you think 70, 90 or however many more years would be an incentive?

My suggestion would be, let's limit it to, say, 20 years and see if people stop creating content. My money is on "they won't stop".

So care to explain to me why you need the lengths you do? To give people an incentive to create? Don't make me laugh!

What's the reason behind copyright? To give authors and creative artists an incentive to produce

You still didn't answer the question.

let's limit it to, say, 20 years and see if people stop creating content. My money is on "they won't stop".

Now you're getting closer.

Assumption: There's creative works which we want people to create (books, songs, movies, whatever).Assumption: Without some economic incentive, they won't create them.The Problem: What is the minimum incentive that we can give them to encourage production?

Thing is, both of those assumptions are simply wrong. The first assumption is wrong because it doesn't actually specify in quantity, quality or kind exactly what it is that we want. This mean

You're right, maybe "incentive" was the wrong term. Let's say, how do we enable an artist to focus on creating art instead of forcing him to have a "mundane" job so he can fund his artistry? If people are really good artists, I'd call it a waste if they were forced to work a 9-5 job just to do what they're really good at. Think how much art he could produce if he wasn't distracted by mundane tasks!

If you are dealing with easily reproduced art where the reproduction itself does not represent any sensible amo

If people are really good artists, I'd call it a waste if they were forced to work a 9-5 job just to do what they're really good at.

Surely if the market isn't offering artists a 9-5 job to create their art then there really isn't that much demand for it.

Think how much art he could produce if he wasn't distracted by mundane tasks!

Think of how much of that art we don't want. I can apply this argument for anything. Think of how many waves I could surf if I wasn't distracted by a 9-5 job.. Think of how many nasty letters to KD Lang I could write if I wasn't distracted by a 9-5 job. Before you decide to offer an economic incentive for an activity you really have to ask what the value of that activity is.

You could classify me as a Slashdot reader who does not have a firm opinion on overall copyright law and needs to be convinced one way or another. That being said, this article has progressed 0% of the way towards that goal. It's basically several quoted paragraphs following by the writer ranting as if he's yelling at a television screen- "Oh no you didn't say that! Corporate whore!" etc.

Aside from a few anecdotal cases of copyright-related stupidity such as the iTunes song activation limit, I could not

Length, for one. If you're not able to recover your production cost in 10 years, you won't recover them in 90. So why extension after extension?

I see this sawed on quite a bit, and I disagree. Often, interest in a classic results in a resurgence of income for whoever is holding onto the rights, if they are clever and "agile" (/me ducks) enough to take advantage of it.

On the other hand, what do I get by allowing corporations to exert copyright? If I eventually get the right to do anything I want with it, and by eventually I mean "reasonably within my lifespan if I became familiar with it as a teenager", then maybe I am willing to pay what the market

I wish someone in Congress actually served their constituents and asked the simple question:
When a consumer buys a CD/DVD is that customer allowed to put it on their mobile media player? If so, and how would they legally go about doing that?

It seems that the **AA wants a one way street when it comes to this issue. They put anti-ripping software on both CDs and DVDs,,, which doesn't actually reduce copyright infringement; it only causes their customers to break laws in order to actually use the content they purchased.

While I don't think anyone's been delusional about it, this is proof that government officials are in the pocket of corporations, or at least have some ulterior motive for acting in their interests. (While that line was said by Hatch, Wexler's part doesn't fare much better.)

The US Constitution empowers Congress:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

No where in there does it say anything about profit.

I now view Wexler and Hatch as one of the many bought-and-paid-for politicians; it's unfortunate I have no opportunity to vote against either. On an interesting aside, Wexler is a Democrat (FL) and Hatch a Republican (UT). Why neither the summary nor the techdirt article states this is beyond me, as I consider it highly relevant.

While I don't think anyone's been delusional about it, this is proof that government officials are in the pocket of corporations, or at least have some ulterior motive for acting in their interests.

I'm always a little disturbed about what passes for proof of this proposition these days. The whole case against them is heaps upon heaps of here-say, conspiracy theories, and opinions borne of ignorance or a lack of perspective when viewing the facts.

As a professor, I write programs, papers and am currently working on a book. All these activities involve creating copyrighted content. The people of my State pay me to do this, as I work for a State university. So, you are probably thinking that my situation is a bit like Bono and the other 'creative' sorts? Nothing could be further from the truth.

Once I have written a paper, it needs to go through peer review, via the blind referee process. This is all good and stops me publishing silly stuff. The next step is where the copyright problem arises.

Once I have a paper accepted, it is necessary for me to assign the copyright to the publishers of the journal. No copyright assignment, no publication. It is as simple as that. So, who gets the fruits of my labors? Big multi-national corporations. What did they do to get this intellectual content? Absolutely bugger all, other than rigging the system! What about the people of my State who paid for my hard work? They get nothing. If they want to read my papers, they have to buy them from the journal (at $15 per paper and up), or visit a library. Libraries have to pay for a journal subscription ($750 per annum and up).

Thus, all this 'creativity' and copyright bleating is clearly bollocks. It is just a case of the powerful folks using rhetoric to fight for their monopoly 'rights'. I don't care to participate, but am forced to. Of course, I also run an e-journal where the authors retain copyright, but that is another story. My little act of subversion.

Don't fall for all this 'starving artist' rubbish. My bet is that we professors in our professional bondage produce more per year than the people represented by the members of both the RIAA and the MIAA, put together. I wonder what those crooks, or their mouth pieces, would have to say in response to that claim? I bet we will never hear.

"We are led by fools who waste our lives". Copyright is a good idea which has now been subverted into a scam and it sucks.

Orin Hatch is renowned for being one of the most corrupt men in the United States (accepting larger bribes than any other senator from the shadiest industries in the country). He is the personification of both major parties' vitriol, not just republican. He, like Ted Stevens and the Kennedys, is proof that we need to limit the number of terms that anyone may stay in Washington. He's a royal family, all in and of himself.

the anti net neutrality attack was hatched by republicans. iraq flop was engineered by republicans. healthcare flop was engineered by republicans. unconstitutional wiretappings, torture, executive powers to the extent of dictatorship were engineered by republicans. the fucking global crisis was only possible thanks to republicans chanting 'hands off businesses' for 30 years and more. entire world is suffering. republicans. republicans, and again republicans.

the fact is, one of them fucked up the ENTIRE world economy, started a totally irrelevant war, attacked net neutrality, bankrupted not only u.s., but caused bankruptcy of a few other countries, undermined american people with that healthcare flop, aided radical right wing governments to power in numerous countries, and did that ALL at the same time in the past 8 years.

excuse me, but, if i do have any amount of proportionality and comparison sk